Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S. Lekh Raj & Co vs U.T. Chandigarh And Others on 29 January, 2009
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.47704-M of 2007
Date of decision : 29-01-2009
M/s. Lekh Raj & Co.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
U.T. Chandigarh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. G.S. Sawhney, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate,
for UT, Chandigarh.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral)
The Food Inspector had instituted a complaint against one Bhart Bhushan from whose shop sample of BDM Rose-E-Bahaar Sharbat was taken. Accused Bhart Bhushan appeared and pleaded not guilty and took a plea that original invoice / bill was issued by the distributor. There is a warranty in his favour and while invoking Section 20-A, distributor should be summoned to face trial.
Reply to the application was filed by the Food Inspector in which he accepted the contentions in the application. Accordingly distributor was summoned u/s 20-A of the Act.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon M/s. Omprakash Shivprakash Vs. K.I. Kuriakose and others, 2000(1), RCC, 62 to contend that the Section 20-A can only be invoked when Magistrate asked the accused whether he pleaded guilty or not as envisaged in Section 251 of the Code if the Magistrate opts to hold summary trial. The accused on appearance had taken a defence that he is not guilty as goods have been supplied to him by the distributor and there is a warranty in his favour and he be discharged as he is protected u/s 19(2) of the Prevention of Crl. Misc. No.47704-M of 2007 -2- Food Adulteration Act. The accused appeared in the witness box and he was examined as AW1. The testimony of Bhart Bhushan has not been placed on the file. Thereafter the statement of Sandeep Gupta, Advocate for the complainant has recorded in which he has stated that he do not intend to lead any evidence. The requirement of law as envisaged by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Omprakash Shivprakash's case (supra) stood satisfied.
Therefore, no interference is warranted.
Present petition is dismissed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
29-1-2009 JUDGE
manju